DLF Response to Generative AI and D: An Open Letter

[Indraj Gandham]

On Friday, 17 July 2026 at 18:36:09 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> Let's suppose that someone uses an LLM to commit code to the D 
> compiler that comes from a less permissive license. Since D 
> compilers are all open source, people can scan the code and 
> check vs other code. Assume the DLF is successfully sued, what 
> do you think would be the most likely outcome from that? Or the 
> potential outcomes?
>
> And how would that impact you as a compiler user?

The letter specifically focuses on Phobos rather than the 
compiler, because it is distributed with applications. The 
problem with dealing with it after the fact is that it assumes 
the original copyright holder will act in good faith. 
Unfortunately, history shows this is often not the case. For 
example, the copyright holder might be a competitor (or colluding 
with a competitor) with the intention of causing disruption or 
reputational damage to the Phobos user and their commercial 
activities. This could be achieved by seeking an injunction and 
doing so at the worst time for the Phobos user, such as during 
the run-up to the launch of a new product.

This is, of course, hypothetical. But risks always are – until 
they materialise.